Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Any advice on what remedies are available given the following circumstances - would be much appreciated. Dec 23, HMCTS enforcement officer (HMCEO) knocks on the door. Stating he possesses a “warrant of control” (WOC) issued by xxxxxx Justice Centre (HJC) to recover unpaid fines for driving offences. Further stating, he is there “to execute the warrant and take goods to the value of .. if the warrant wasn’t settled in cash/monies” After requesting proof I was given a quick glimpse (seconds) of a small tablet/palm sized “computer” I only caught flash of a white screen. I notified him, A number of times, I needed to see a copy of said woc. I was unaware of any outstanding warrant. I was not going to pay as the matter was live and had been sent to XXXX Crown Court with Jan hearing. It was not my property but my dear friend’s (14yrs) home. He was not coming in and he was not going to force entry. I asked how come he was at this address – no reply. He had better phone the old bill, if he had any issues. As he had not set foot in the house, I closed the door I was unaware the purported WOC or any warrant, I was under the impression my case was with the courts. My requests for a copy were persistently refused, I was unaware what case(s) were listed as “outstanding on this purported WOC”.  (had live S172 with the courts with an appeal) this alleged woc was totally unrelated.   With supporting high court documents I approached his Co vehicle to reasonably discuss what was going on. After exchanging a few words, he had my name down as the address we were at. Oddly, he then stated the car at the same address which he was blocking in, was mine !! – It was not and never has been ! neither was it reg/ins at that address. I could hear the police sirens approaching, No issues with those attending at all. The first officer lady (ONr1) approached, listened to what I had to say. Then went to speak with "HMCEO". I went inside to gain more evidence that his documents were invalid.   Ms xxxxxx (property/title holder) produced a mortgage document stating the title holder. It was dissmissed by by both "HMCEO" and Police I produced a number of court documents; High Court document with correct address from HHJ xxxxx, HMCTS stating my case was to be heard at xxxxx Crown Court Jan date DVLA drivers license with xxxxxxx with correct address. All documents dismissed by both HMCEO and Police. My trial documents had the correct address as did HMCTS. ONr1 was now joined ONr2, they both concluded the HMCEO WOC document superseded my High court documents as it was addressed to xxxxx. High court documents were irrelevant as the address was “different” from my friends home. I was dumbfounded when the officers stated the “HMCEO was here to collect a debt as instructed by the court”, if I was “to obstruct him in his duties I would be arrested and removed”. I still had not seen any proof of an actual woc I unsuccessfully challenged the officers comments for a fair few moments, then realised no matter what I said, did or otherwise, they had made up their minds and where going to arrest me if my objections persisted. I could not believe I was witnessing misfeasance in public office. Where’s the impartiality I asked ??  - no reply.   I requested more time to collect and gather myself.   I could not raise the amount of money demanded. HMCEO would not accept a pay plan, as apparently the demanded sums had been outstanding for some time. Payment in full was again demanded or a locksmith would be called to drill the locks and force entry. (destruction of 3rd party property) with threat of further hundreds of pounds to be added.   I strongly objected, stating I had no entitlement of title to Nr xxxxxx, neither of the three were interested. Full payment was again demanded or entry will be forced and goods removed.   I was melting down and in a dark place mentally, xxxxx was also in a terrible state considering the threats made against her and her beloved property. even the old bill had chosen to support a private company break the law !!.   " HMCEO" persisted his menacing demands to extort monies. Finally, Diane, under extreme duress and threats of forced entry, coupled with threats of arrest if I didn’t stand aside and let HMCEO extort monies. Against her better will and judgement she transferred monies form her and her sons account(s) to that of "Marston's". Effectively settling a third party debt. His actions amounted to theft, fraud, extortion, and fraud by false representation. Money had just been extorted from the best friend I had, and I was helpless. I understand the following facts are true, I have the opinion both myself, ms Kelly and her son were victims, and this happened here. Even if there was a valid WOC it was illegal as the case had previously been withdrawn; The act of threatening a victim’s person or property with violence, physical harm or destruction to coerce them into complying with demands. Threatened actions that constitute extortion when used to re-enforce an unwarranted demand would be offences in and of themselves (offences against the person or criminal damage). The Theft Act defines the instance of blackmail as one where: “a person with a view to gain for themselves or another or intending to cause loss to another makes an unwarranted demand with menaces. Dishonesty is not an element of the offence.” The sheer fact, he was supported by 2nr police officers – either of which or both, should have been sufficiently knowledgeable enough in criminal law, and vigilant enough to have seen and prevented a fraudulent crime against another(s) being committed with their support. ======= After the event - Next morning calls to/from HMCTS ======= Call from “Enforcement MoJ” confirmed they have already instructed Marstons Group as a matter of urgency to return all monies wrongly taken from Ms xxxxx .  HMCTS ..... Ms xxxxxx, 1/12/23 @ 11:50 States …”case withdrawn 28th Feb 23” email attached Purported WOC issued by Harrogate Justice Centre (HJC). for collection of fines for allegations by West Yorkshire Police (WYP), that had previously been withdrawn. Ref: HMCTS Letter Dated – XXth XX  2023: Case Nr. ********, listed for XXth XX 23 @ XX:XX WYP Letter. Headed - XXth XX 23, Trial at Kirklees Mags Court on XX/XX/2023 at XX:XX                                                     i.     WYP offer no evidence and request HMCTS, CPS - case be dismissed.  According to HJC There was no evidence of WOC ever been issued.   Ms xxxxxx & son, eventually had monies returned. No apology to either Ms xxxxxx or her son. Executed a “warrant of control” which was not prescribed by the HMCTS. His actions amounted to fraud, fraud by false representation. His actions amount to theft, fraud, and fraud by false representation. Extortion of monies by menace S12 Theft Act 76 Alledged "HMCEO" removed monies on two occasions from a third 3rd party bank accounts, 2nr sums circa £600 and £600 collectively totalling £1200.00 to which he had no legal right or obligation to do so. His actions amounted to theft, fraud, and fraud by false representation. Extortion of monies by menace S12 Theft Act 76 As ¶²⁸ above, removed monies under the false pretences of a certified bailiff, whilst not been in possession of the correct court documents entitling him to do so. He was thus acting as a “common debt collector” as such he was not entitled to charge any fees. His actions amounted to theft, fraud, fraud by false representation. Extortion of monies by menace S12 Theft Act 76  Alleged "HMCEO" Knowingly provided a false statement of fact to WYP knowing they would act upon those facts. The two attending police officers should have been sufficiently knowledgeable enough in criminal law, to prevent such a fraudulent crime been committed in their presence. The very fact there was legal correspondence from HHJ xxxxxxxx   xxxxx Crown Court within dated parameters surly overrides any civil documents purporting to be from HMCTS. Especially when PNC, DVLA, MIB, databases could instantly confirm/deny the defendants statement of address. This event (along with others) has not only devestated my life, but my friends too. To the extent I was admitted to Acute Mental Health Team NGH for 4/5wks as I was unable to cope with the effect this action had taken on my best friend. The consequences have been insumountable, the mere sight of the old bill now reduces me to a wreck. WHAT LEGAL REMEDIES (IF ANY) MAY BE AVAILABLE TO ME/US - How would one proceed ?? Contructive comments only please - **** takers and conspiracists jog on.  All HMCTS documents are available, Only 2nr Marston documents exist, 2nr receipts for payments taken.  Regards Mr Blue            
    • 1 Date of the infringement 14/12/2023   2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]  Issue date 27/17/2023   [scan up BOTH SIDES as ONE PDF- follow the upload guide] please LEAVE IN LOCATION AND ALL DATES/TIMES/£'s   3 Date received 10/12/2024   4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]  N   5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes   6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]  No   Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up No   7 Who is the parking company? Excel Parking   8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Brewery Street Car Park, Chesterfield, S417UG   For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. IPC on their letter BPC on others I have attached all letters received to date by Excel and others.  Any advice is more than welcome PCN Letters_1_11zon.pdf
    • Hi guys I got caught with my mum's freedom pass the other day. I have now received a letter asking how I'm going to plea I've only just received it but it says reply within 10 days of the letter from when it was dated on the 17th june which seems unfair, but anyway! What's my best bet here? I have seen the best thing and it's the most logical, is to just come clean, say say it was wrong and plead with them! I've attached the letters they have sent Thanks for any help you can provide Image to PDF 20240625 22.16.31.pdf
    • Mediation date now set. Do I just tell them 'I don't have enough information?'
    • With the inflation dragon appearing to have been slain, falling to the 2% target in recent data, there is a risk that savings rates could similarly plummet.View the full article
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.


      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Retail Loss Prevention in Parliament - Hansard

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4380 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Denis MacShane



4.45 pm


Mr MacShane: I have a modest experience of such matters. I wrote a book many years ago, which was quite profitable—the only one that was not remaindered and did make some money—in which I referred to the Institute of Journalists in derogatory terms. I was shocked to find that as a body corporate it could sue me. Because my publisher was a left-wing publisher, it immediately surrendered and I lost all the profit. [ Interruption. ]A long time ago, yes—a left-wing publisher.

I am concerned that as the Bill progresses, we have an extraordinarily egregious example of exactly the points that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, covers in his new clause, and that is the news that the law firm Schillings is showering defamation writs on the citizens advice bureau—one of the most prestigious and respected of all the voluntary organisations that we all have relationships with—as well as the law firm Bates Wells and Braithwaite, the Justice Gap website and the consumer websites Legal seagulls and Consumer Action Group.


Why is Schillings doing that? It is because there is an extremely unpleasant practice now taking place in our retail industry—developed, I am sad to say, under a Labour Government—called civil recovery. In essence, 90% of all shoplifting in our stores is organised by gangs. About 8% or 9% is done by in-house stealing. The tiny 1% is done—frankly, for the most part—by rather sad people. I am not condoning shoplifting; none of us would. Quite a lot of people who walk out of Tesco or Boots have not put in the correct barcode. We have all had that problem now since we have had to, as it were, do our own till accounting. Then the people are pulled back into the shop, taken into a little room and told that they could face prosecution, but Tesco, TK Maxx, Boots or Primark will not prosecute. Instead they will ask for names and addresses and a few weeks later a company in Nottingham called Retail Loss Prevention, which is owned by one person—Mrs Jackie


Column number: 193

Lambert—sends a threatening letter to the person saying that unless they immediately pay £150 or £180, they may face prosecution. Most of the people are children or adolescents, often from families without much structure. They are terrified out of their wits. Retail Loss Prevention—this Jackie Lambert person—says that this practice has been approved by the Association of Police Chief Officers and is thoroughly legal. It is not. It is a threat to obtain money, because the point of detention is not to go forward and hand the shoplifter—if that is the case, and we are not condoning it—over to the police for prosecution. There have been 750,000—


The Chair: Order. Can you explain how your speech fits with the question of defamation?


Mr MacShane: Quite. This is exactly the core of the point. This is a £15 million racket used by a lot of major companies—corporate groups—such as Boots, TK Maxx, Primark, Debenhams, Superdrug and Tesco. They are all shops that we use. These bodies corporate are going to another body corporate called Retail Loss Prevention and getting it to obtain money from very vulnerable people. When the CAB, also a body corporate, seeks to take up the cases, it then faces defamation writs from Schillings. I am sorry if any member of the Committee does not see the seriousness of the matter and why we should stand with the vulnerable people in our society rather than the Nottingham company and its use of Schillings to put pressure on the CAB.


David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con): The whole point of scrutinising the Bill is to find out where we can improve it instead of going over old turf.


Mr MacShane: I would certainly welcome that, but until Government Members understand exactly what is going on, they will continue to support the Government’s rejection of the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South. We have a Standing Committee in order to go into the problems of the case in much greater detail than is allowed on Second Reading.


Here we have an example, before our very eyes, at this very time, of Schillings acting on behalf of one body corporate and companies that hide behind the Nottinghamshire-based company and Mrs Lambert. They seek to extract an estimated total of £15 million from poor and vulnerable people.

I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark is not present—he is obviously busy—but he has raised that point in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall. I know that the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is also aware of that case, so this is not a point of view from just the Labour side of the Committee.


As the company now realises that the CAB and other organisations are defending weak and vulnerable people, they have initiated one or two court cases for shoplifting, only to find that they are being thrown out by the High Court.


Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con): It is theft.


Column number: 194


Mr MacShane: The hon. Lady says from a sedentary position that it is theft. If it is theft, the store has an obligation to call the police, have the person arrested, provide the evidence and prosecute the person. They are not doing that, but sending people home and seeking to extract money from them later on.


Robert Flello: Despite the interjections of the hon. Member for Broxtowe, I am following what my hon. Friend is saying. The situation, as I understand from what he was saying—I would like his clarification on this—is exactly was I was talking about when moving new clause 4. Companies throw their weight around and are quite happy to reach for letters to threaten all sorts of things, whether or not they can do it. What he is talking about is symptomatic of a problem with corporations, which, even if the law is not on their side, they will make up as they go along.


Mr MacShane: It is no accident that the practice, which is quite widespread in America, was unknown in Britain until 1998. It started with the arrival en masse in our high streets of TK Maxx and Superdrug, two American companies. One should congratulate Mrs Lambert in Nottingham for having realised what a wonderful little earner that is.


I have no problem with making any shoplifter or anyone who steals anything face the legal consequences. What is wrong, in my judgment, is for Schillings to be suing the CAB—my goodness! I think all hon. Members will accept that in every one of our constituencies, the CAB is having to shed staff and operate on a reduced basis due to financial constraints. To make it undertake the responsibility of defending a worrying set of defamation writs from Schillings, acting on behalf of the Retail Loss Prevention company and some of the most powerful corporations in our land, is a grotesquely unfair and improper abuse of existing defamation law.


That is why I hope hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will accept the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South. It would not stop the bullying in toto, but it would at least send a much clearer signal to big companies such as TK Maxx, Tesco, Primark, Superdrug and Boots, and to Retail Loss Prevention that their little game is over. If they find someone who has committed a valid shoplifting crime, they should call the police and bring the people before the courts. They should not use that underhanded way to achieve their aims and use Schillings, a defamation lawyer, to put pressure on the great and good organisation that is the CAB to stop it raising the issue in public.


Tom Brake: Is the right hon. Gentleman as concerned as I am about the following aspect of the letter? It is the suggestion that the company has encountered substantial financial losses as a result of a small number of postings on a website that I think is relatively obscure.


Mr MacShane: Once again, we have the bullying side of defamation writs. CAB is probably the best known of those threatened by Schillings. On the whole, it is big enough, old enough and reasonably resourced enough to look after itself. We have, thank goodness, lots of wonderful little consumer groups producing websites,


Edited by citizenB
spacing to make reading easier.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Simon Hughes




Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD): I apologise because I had to go out during some of the debate, but I was here at the beginning.

The Chair: I understand, Mr Hughes.

Simon Hughes: I rise to speak on the issue that lies behind the new clause. I have initiated Adjournment debates in the House on Retail Loss Prevention, and have worked with colleagues in the Lords on the matter, and I have had several meetings about it over the years with Richard Dunstan of Citizens Advice.

I remain concerned that power is abused by large retail outlets, which use a regular set of solicitors to protect their interest. They pursue normally young and often vulnerable people for small amounts of money, and lead them to believe that other consequences will flow if they do not pay, even though that is not true under the law. Effectively, retail outlets often get large sums from such individuals. If, for example, someone has left a store with a comb or a tube of toothpaste, they are told that unless they pay considerably more than the value of the property—£100 or sometimes £1,000, which accumulates very quickly—they will be guilty under criminal law.

Of course, retailers have to protect stores and the goods in them; I understand that. It is perfectly reasonable for stores to have security people, as long as they act reasonably. There is a real issue here, however, and there is a social malaise in how such companies pursue their interests. Some quite reputable companies are involved, as well as some disreputable ones.

It is clear from correspondence that Schillings, which has written about the case, is trying to represent Mr Dunstan as someone who is on a frolic of his own, pursuing something disreputably, obsessively and almost paranoically. He has been doing a job for a highly reputable organisation, Citizens Advice, with which I have worked over the years and on behalf of which I once sponsored somebody to work with me here. We all know from experience in our constituencies that Citizens Advice has at heart only the best interests of those who come through its doors. I simply want to ask how we stop the big boys and girls attacking the little boys and girls with the back-up of lawyers, who intimidate them and misrepresent the legal position.

In answer to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland’s challenge to my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and me, I am not persuaded that the new clause is the right way to deal with the

Column number: 199

problem, although I understand absolutely that we must do something. I would be interested to hear what the Minister says. I am aware of previous debates on the issue in consideration of the draft Bill, but I certainly do not think the right solution is to make companies go through a separate doorway and an entirely different process that does not apply to individuals. I am keeping an open mind about that. Mr MacShane: Is it not a fact that, as we speak, across the range of civil laws and torts, companies may be in front of judges, asking for urgent applications, injunctions or hearings? In the hypothetical case of a company that was about to be taken over when something grossly defamatory was said, clearly the company would go to a judge, who would instantly acquiesce to the necessary action being taken. The new clause does not prevent that, but it says to Tesco, Superdrug, TK Maxx and Mrs Lambert that they should not seek to silence genuine concerns about what they are up to by using defamation threats and Schillings.


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...